Looking Back at Iraq With…Michael Gordon?

The performance of the corporate media is one of the principal failures of the Iraq War. There are almost too many examples to name; but most critics agree that one of the most instrumental single pieces that made the false case for war was the front-page New York Times story (9/8/02) hyping the idea that Iraq was trying to procure special aluminum tubes for its nuclear weapons program.

Last night in its 10-years-later segment, the PBS NewsHour (3/19/13) made a rather stunning judgment: One of the two expert journalists was the guy who co-authored that piece.

New York Times reporter Michael Gordon was the lead author on that infamous tubes article, but his record goes deeper than that. A few days into the U.S. bombing (3/25/13), Gordon appeared on CNN to endorse the bombing of Iraqi TV's offices, calling it "an appropriate target," since "we're trying to send the exact opposite message."

When U.S. politicians began to seriously consider a withdrawal of U.S. troops, Gordon criticized that policy, especially in one article (11/15/06) headlined, "Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say" (FAIR Media Advisory, 12/4/06). He went on the Charlie Rose show (1/18/07) to endorse a troop surge. (Even the Washington Post admits that the idea that the surge succeeded is a "myth"–3/15/13.) And in early 2007, Gordon wrote articles, relying heavily on anonymous U.S. sources, alleging that the Iranian government was sending weapons into Iraq (Action Alert, 2/16/07).

So why would Gordon be someone you'd want to listen to about the Iraq War? That's hard to say, really. But Gordon had plenty to tell PBS viewers. He complained that the Obama White House wasn't interested enough in Iraq–leading to "the decline of American influence." As he put it:

I think they view Iraq as just another country. They don't have the same emotional or psychological or even foreign policy stake in it that the previous administration had.

Gordon added that the U.S. military "see a lot of early mistakes in the first years" of the war, but that "I do think the surge, as a military operation and military strategy, was effective and was essential."

When one of the hosts, Judy Woodruff, asked about the war's legacy, he replied: "Well, I think the military learned how to do counterinsurgency. The public opinion may no longer support that, but forever is a long time. And I think you can't say we won't have to do that again at some point in the future."

And if there is ever another moment that requires reporters to faithfully record the views of anonymous U.S. officials as they make their case for war, it's a safe bet that Michael Gordon will be there to do that job.

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

The are not trying to defund PBS, they are simply attacking it so that people will look over there; Media Slight of hand so you don't see their hand dipping into your pocket again. If you think they are trying to attack, you won't stop to see that they are just using that as excuse to make the Board of PBS do what they want.

"One of the two expert journalists was the guy who co-authored that piece." Which two expert journalists are you referring to? If it is one of those 2 co-authors, then your statement is circular, not ironic. I don't get it.

Can you imagine this shmuck appearing on Rachel Maddow? She'd incinerate him. "So, Gordon, a trillion of our tax dollars squandered and a million Iraqi human beings slaughtered — many if not most, women and children — so the US military could learn how to do counterinsurgency. For playing an active role in the Big Lie that helped get us there, can you explain to me in words that third graders in our viewing audience can understand: why you should not be indicted as a war criminal and sent to The Hague in handcuffs?"

My God, re-read the article. It's pretty clear who's being talked about. And, you're not gettin' it, are you J Kelly? What's relevant here are the outrageous, and, frankly, insane things that Gordon said. That his man is taken seriously is disturbing in and of itself.

Charlie Rose is pathetic. stopped watching some years back. for the truth on anything, alternative presses are the best. Thank you FAIR.
In the Bay area we are fortunate to have another station to listen to 91.7 fm, KALW which has many good programs. The one featuring Rose Aguilar YOUR CALL RADIO has been covering IRAQ this week with real folks who actually were on the scene and truth to report. enjoy

[…] Hart, activism director at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), discusses the media's Iraq War retrospective on the 10-year anniversary of the US invasion; why NY Times reporter Michael Gordon – who […]

Why have W Bush, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld not been prosecuted for starting the Iraq war on false pretences and they knew they were false.
No WMD were ever found. The special envoy from the UN led by MR Dick from AU told them over and over that they couldn't find WMD's.
Estimates are that close to 1,000,000 people got killed. The situation in Iraq is left 100 times worse for the people after the US left. Why is there not anybody calling for their prosecution?

>> When U.S. politicians began to seriously consider a withdrawal of U.S. troops, Gordon criticized that policy, especially in one article (11/15/06) headlined, "Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say" <>He went on the Charlie Rose show (1/18/07) to endorse a troop surge. (Even the Washington Post admits that the idea that the surge succeeded is a "myth"–3/15/13.)<> And in early 2007, Gordon wrote articles, relying heavily on anonymous U.S. sources, alleging that the Iranian government was sending weapons into Iraq. <<

But the point is, those reports, from whatever their source, about Iranian manufactured explosive devices in Iraq, turned out to be correct.

That Peter Hard claims to be about fairness and accuracy is the most preposterous part of his tendentious gibber.

" When U.S. politicians began to seriously consider a withdrawal of U.S. troops, Gordon criticized that policy, especially in one article (11/15/06) headlined, 'Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say' "

In 2006 more than 5.5 million Iraqis had elected a govt at the risk of their lives. An insurgency was raging. A few thousand, Islamist fanatics, many from outside Iraq, had declared democracy, freedom of speech and religious toleration, abhorrent to Allah. They meant to defeat and replace t the Arab world's first democracy with an Islamist govt and then inspire and support insurgencies across the Gulf region.

At the hight of that fight some US politicians, foremost Obama, demanded that the US withdraw and leave Iraq and its 30 million souls to the mercy of terrorists who crashed exploding cars into civilian crowds. Gordon opposed that. He feared it would produce a disaster for Iraq and the US. Who today denies that he he was correct.

But Peter Hart has the temerity to denounce that shrewd reporter and his prescient analysis. He regrets that the US did not flee that battlefield. Not only did it involve the most vital US interests, not since the Nazis had hanged democrats from meathooks, had a fight so clearly involved the most fundamental US principles. Hart still regrets that we did not let the Islamists win.

He goes on to complain:
"He went on the Charlie Rose show (1/18/07) to endorse a troop surge. (Even the Washington Post admits that the idea that the surge succeeded is a "myth"–3/15/13.)"

Yes, Gordon was a supporter of what turned out to be a winning strategy. That the surge was a failure is a stupid lie. Even Rajiv Chandrasekaran, in his myth piece for the WP, agrees that the surge brought the insurgency to a halt. It reduced violence by ninety percent. It killed or ejected al Qaeda from the country. Rajiv's complaint is that the surge did not bring about a grand bargain between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.

"And in early 2007, Gordon wrote articles, relying heavily on anonymous U.S. sources, alleging that the Iranian government was sending weapons into Iraq. "

But the point is, those reports, from whatever their source, about Iranian manufactured explosive devices in Iraq, turned out to be correct.

That Peter Hard claims to be about fairness and accuracy is the most preposterous part of his tendentious gibber.